Which rule permits a plaintiff to recover reduced damages so long as the plaintiff's fault is not greater than the other party's fault?

• A. Assumption-of-risk defense
• B. Pure comparative negligence rule
• C. Fifty percent comparative negligence rule
• D. Forty nine percent comparative negligence rule

Answer: (D)

The concept here is how modified comparative negligence assigns responsibility for damages based on each party’s fault, reducing the plaintiff’s recovery by their own percentage of fault. The rule that fits the description—recovering reduced damages as long as the plaintiff’s fault is not greater than the other party’s fault—sets a strict threshold for the plaintiff’s own fault. The forty-nine percent comparative negligence rule does exactly that: if the plaintiff is at most 49% at fault and the other party is at least 51% at fault, the plaintiff can recover, with the damages reduced by the plaintiff’s 49% share. If the plaintiff’s fault reaches 50% or more, recovery is barred. This aligns with the idea that the plaintiff’s fault must not be greater than the other party’s to obtain recovery.

The other choices don’t fit as neatly. An assumption-of-risk defense is a separate defense based on the plaintiff knowingly accepting risk, not a damages-reduction rule tied to fault comparison. Pure comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to recover even if they’re more at fault, simply reducing damages by their fault percentage, without the “not greater than” condition. The fifty percent comparative negligence rule bars recovery when the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, which is a different threshold than the 49% rule described.